kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
One of his companies sells carbon offsets which he "buys" from. What a joke. Carbon offset are snake oil! He is profiting from lies.... end of story. I don't give a rip if he has a huge house but I do care about the bullshit he slings that he cannot back up!
Do you believe in SO2 offsets or do you think they are snake oil too?
Yes! It is either a way for the govt. to get money to fund what they deem as necessary or a way for a private company to get rich on BS.
So the dramatic improvement in quality of our lakes and rivers since SO2 offsets were introduced is of no consequence to you.
www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085
Acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.
Kall..... the EDF is hardly a source I consider "unbiased". Sorry..... the same kind of organizations have reported many times over the polar ice was decreasing at a rapid rate and then other sources report that's not true. So yes.... I hold to my previous statement.... snake oil.
I can't help your erroneous beliefs.
Here's another source. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that SO2 emissions have dropped since cap&trade was introduced. Thanks be to St. Ronald Reagan.
cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewInd&lv=list.listByAlpha&r=219694&subtop=341
There is no way acid rain has decreased for another reason is there?
"Power plants fueled by coal are far less polluting than 30 years ago. Just since 1998, their annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have declined another 28 percent and 43 percent respectively, according to air quality expert Joel Schwartz – and new rules will eliminate most remaining emissions by 2015."
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/old/GrassrootPerspective/AltEnergy032608.shtml
I get it Kall..... I have erroneus beliefs and all your sources are the right ones..... right?
Thank you for proving my point. SO2 emissions ARE way down since C&T was intoduced.
PS nice UNBIASED source you quoted there.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,635
Quote
Pull your head out of the sand look up. Do you really believe the average person can afford to burn the amount of fuel his jet burns? that alone will make his carbon footprint larger than the average person. You are a professor, calculate the carbon emissions of his jet and get back to me.
AL Gore doesn't have a jet, and has never had a jet. Yet another right wing lie that you've swallowed.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
One of his companies sells carbon offsets which he "buys" from. What a joke. Carbon offset are snake oil! He is profiting from lies.... end of story. I don't give a rip if he has a huge house but I do care about the bullshit he slings that he cannot back up!
Do you believe in SO2 offsets or do you think they are snake oil too?
Yes! It is either a way for the govt. to get money to fund what they deem as necessary or a way for a private company to get rich on BS.
So the dramatic improvement in quality of our lakes and rivers since SO2 offsets were introduced is of no consequence to you.
www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085
Acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.
Kall..... the EDF is hardly a source I consider "unbiased". Sorry..... the same kind of organizations have reported many times over the polar ice was decreasing at a rapid rate and then other sources report that's not true. So yes.... I hold to my previous statement.... snake oil.
I can't help your erroneous beliefs.
Here's another source. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that SO2 emissions have dropped since cap&trade was introduced. Thanks be to St. Ronald Reagan.
cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewInd&lv=list.listByAlpha&r=219694&subtop=341
There is no way acid rain has decreased for another reason is there?
"Power plants fueled by coal are far less polluting than 30 years ago. Just since 1998, their annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have declined another 28 percent and 43 percent respectively, according to air quality expert Joel Schwartz – and new rules will eliminate most remaining emissions by 2015."
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/old/GrassrootPerspective/AltEnergy032608.shtml
I get it Kall..... I have erroneus beliefs and all your sources are the right ones..... right?
Thank you for proving my point. SO2 emissions ARE way down since C&T was intoduced.
PS nice UNBIASED source you quoted there.
I never said they are not down.... you skirted the point. THey are down bc of technology not buying offsets!
The purpose of me quoting that source was to show you there are two sides to the coin. How did you not get that as smart as you are?
I'm sorry I can't help your erroeous belief's that my source is not correct.
Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com
QuoteQuoteI do have a problem with those who would exempt themselves from the standards they set for others.
That right there is UN-AMERICUN... here I thought you were the great defender of all things corporatist and capatalist
DUUUUUDE... are you a commie.... the RICH are different. They have the money to do what they want. We live in the country run BY the GOLDEN RULE.
Um - I don't prescribe standards by which others should live. I prescribe the standards for myself and my kids. When my kids are adults they prescribe their own standards.
There is always something communist/socialist/fascist about prescribing subjective standards for people on moral bases. This is why I am not religious. It's why I'm not republican (I like to live my life the way I want and not the way they think I should.) I'm not a democrat (I like to live my life the way I want and not the way they think I should.)
I don't tell other people that they should live a certain way and do the other thing. I don't prescribe standards for anybody. Do what you want. Face the consequences. I do not exempt myself form this standard at all.
QuoteHE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES DA RULZ...... so suck it up cupcake
Actually, it seems that they who have the gold do not. Were your statement true, then the Rich would not be taxed nearly so heavily. It turns out that in a democratically-based system, those with the largest voting power make the rules.
Politicians know that the wealthiest 10% are only 10%.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Amazon 7
QuoteQuoteQuoteI do have a problem with those who would exempt themselves from the standards they set for others.
That right there is UN-AMERICUN... here I thought you were the great defender of all things corporatist and capatalist
DUUUUUDE... are you a commie.... the RICH are different. They have the money to do what they want. We live in the country run BY the GOLDEN RULE.
Um - I don't prescribe standards by which others should live. I prescribe the standards for myself and my kids. When my kids are adults they prescribe their own standards.
There is always something communist/socialist/fascist about prescribing subjective standards for people on moral bases. This is why I am not religious. It's why I'm not republican (I like to live my life the way I want and not the way they think I should.) I'm not a democrat (I like to live my life the way I want and not the way they think I should.)
I don't tell other people that they should live a certain way and do the other thing. I don't prescribe standards for anybody. Do what you want. Face the consequences. I do not exempt myself form this standard at all.QuoteHE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES DA RULZ...... so suck it up cupcake
Actually, it seems that they who have the gold do not. Were your statement true, then the Rich would not be taxed nearly so heavily. It turns out that in a democratically-based system, those with the largest voting power make the rules.
Politicians know that the wealthiest 10% are only 10%.
They sure do have you fooled into believing they are not bought and paid for by those who REALLLY do hold the purse strings and the real power in this country and economy.
It turns out that smoke and mirrors win out every time.... the rich... and I do mean those who are truly rich end up paying SQUAT
QuoteYou have no information whatever on the sustainability of that house.
Sure I do. I lived in Santa Barbara for four years. Montecito is the eastern part of Santa Barbara. Therefore, there is MINIMAL need for air conditioning. On the rare hot days, a swamp cooler will suffice. Does he have AC? Will he be utilizing it?
The house has six fireplaces. Burning wood is, indeed, a resource that can regenerate. But - it rarely even drops to freezing there. Wood also creates a large amount of carbon waste and particulates - including black carbon.
Being in Montecito, there are consistent issues with water supply. The photos suggest the absence of drought-resistant landscaping, including grass.
There also appears to be no solar paneling or any such alternative energy source. He's draw power from Southern California Edison - which draws 17% of its power from "renewable" resources.
Of course, he'll likely purchase carbo offsets - from his company - paying himself.
I'd like to see the Nobel Laureate let us all know about his new digs and how it compares to something like Dubya's ranch.
QuoteGo research sustainability, since you clearly do NOT know what is involved.
Clearly? This is the language of persuasion. It's also conclusory. As a man of letters, I believe that you would understand that "sustainability" is subjective. Just what are we looking at sustaining? The meaning of "sustainability" is subject to so many interpretations and qualitative prioritizing that it cannot be debated based on logic or reason.
If you are referring to the Brundtland commission's definition, it doesn't apply here. It refers only to sustainable "development."
"Suatainable?" Sustainable locally? Globally? Etc.
Thus, for Mr. Gore, I would tend to look at the issue that he discusses most - Carbon. If energy usage was important to him, you'd think that perhaps he'd find a vacation home somewhere closer to where he is. I do not believe he'll be taking the train (about the most carbon-neutral form of travel there is).
Gore made his money on "carbon footprint." By its nature, putting a home on Montecito and another in Nashville implicates travel. Again, I don't mind this. He's got the scratch and he can do with it what he wwants. I do, however, think that his actions betray his pronouncements.
I support what he does. I just would like to see a bit of honesty. Call it what it is, folks. There are standards for everyone else and then there are standards for the chosen.
But John, moving this discussion to "sustainability" is something different on your end.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteQuote
Pull your head out of the sand look up. Do you really believe the average person can afford to burn the amount of fuel his jet burns? that alone will make his carbon footprint larger than the average person. You are a professor, calculate the carbon emissions of his jet and get back to me.
AL Gore doesn't have a jet, and has never had a jet. Yet another right wing lie that you've swallowed.
No he doesn't, he rents private jets that use MUCH LESS fuel than a personally owned one does...wait umm, okay bad example.
What other choice does he have, commercial flights are woefully inadequate between large cities in this country...err well!
...he should REALLY have a private plane like yours Doc...fuel efficient bug smasher, but then again being semi-retired, he doesn't have the TIME to take a slow B-craft.
Ya'll just can't admit he may be using more than his fair share...just like 'many of us' DO!
~ with a bigger that needed house, and more cars than we can drive, burning much more fuel than necessary to get to 'unnecessary' places like the DZ. . .to run two turbines for 1/2 an hour to get us back to the same place we just took off from!
(Bill...you don't count)
Most of his troopers kinda knew Custer was full of shit too... but drank the kool-aid anyway, look what happen to THEM!
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
kallend 1,635
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that SO2 emission would have dropped dramatically after rising for decades, in the absence of controls? Really?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoteYou have no information whatever on the sustainability of that house.
Sure I do. I lived in Santa Barbara for four years. Montecito is the eastern part of Santa Barbara. Therefore, there is MINIMAL need for air conditioning. On the rare hot days, a swamp cooler will suffice. Does he have AC? Will he be utilizing it?
Since he has only just bought it, you have NO IDEA how it will be outfitted by the time he gets it set up for occupation.
Quote
I'd like to see the Nobel Laureate let us all know about his new digs and how it compares to something like Dubya's ranch.
I believe Dubya doesn't live in that ranch any more. He bought a much bigger home.
Quote
QuoteGo research sustainability, since you clearly do NOT know what is involved.
Clearly? This is the language of persuasion. It's also conclusory. As a man of letters, I believe that you would understand that "sustainability" is subjective. Just what are we looking at sustaining? The meaning of "sustainability" is subject to so many interpretations and qualitative prioritizing that it cannot be debated based on logic or reason.
If you are referring to the Brundtland commission's definition, it doesn't apply here. It refers only to sustainable "development."
"Suatainable?" Sustainable locally? Globally? Etc.
Thus, for Mr. Gore, I would tend to look at the issue that he discusses most - Carbon. If energy usage was important to him, you'd think that perhaps he'd find a vacation home somewhere closer to where he is. I do not believe he'll be taking the train (about the most carbon-neutral form of travel there is).
Gore made his money on "carbon footprint." By its nature, putting a home on Montecito and another in Nashville implicates travel. Again, I don't mind this. He's got the scratch and he can do with it what he wwants. I do, however, think that his actions betray his pronouncements.
I support what he does. I just would like to see a bit of honesty. Call it what it is, folks. There are standards for everyone else and then there are standards for the chosen.
But John, moving this discussion to "sustainability" is something different on your end.
If he uses less non-renewable energy than you, he is more sustainable than you REGARDLESS of how big his house is. And since you don't know those data, you are just whining for the sake of whining.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
sundevil777 94
Even if he only uses renewable energy, it is still a LIMITED resource. and he is using A LOT of it. A really dedicated environmentalist would use less renewable energy, so that there would be more of it to go around. Between that and the fact that he still uses a lot of non-renewable energy, makes him a really big enviro hypo.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou have no information whatever on the sustainability of that house.
Sure I do. I lived in Santa Barbara for four years. Montecito is the eastern part of Santa Barbara. Therefore, there is MINIMAL need for air conditioning. On the rare hot days, a swamp cooler will suffice. Does he have AC? Will he be utilizing it?
Since he has only just bought it, you have NO IDEA how it will be outfitted by the time he gets it set up for occupation.
No, I don't. This is an argument against "sustainability" since it will require additional resources. How much will it cost to put in a bunch of these improvements? This is not conclusive, but it requires the use of additional resources.
QuoteQuote
I'd like to see the Nobel Laureate let us all know about his new digs and how it compares to something like Dubya's ranch.
I believe Dubya doesn't live in that ranch any more. He bought a much bigger home.
Yes. Dubya never put himself out as an environmental crusader. No hypocrisy there.
On the other hand, it's interesting. I'd like to see what Mr. Gore intends to do about this. What's the prospective energy use? What improvements does he plan? Windmills? Solar?
QuoteQuote
QuoteGo research sustainability, since you clearly do NOT know what is involved.
But John, moving this discussion to "sustainability" is something different on your end.
If he uses less non-renewable energy than you, he is more sustainable than you REGARDLESS of how big his house is. And since you don't know those data, you are just whining for the sake of whining.
Wrong. if he burns a forest worth of wood every year, that's a renewable resource. It's "sustainable."
It was YOU who framed it in terms of "sustainable." The paper industry is "sustainable" without recycling because trees grow back. Logging is "sustainable" - clearcutting is "sustainable" if the forests are replanted.
And in doing so, Mr. Gore's carbon footprint would be much higher than mine.
"Carbon" is where Gore staked his claim. I've got his ass kicked on that one.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 1,635
Once again you show that you have no idea what the concept of sustainability means.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,635
QuoteEven if he only uses renewable energy, it is still a LIMITED resource. and he is using A LOT of it. A really dedicated environmentalist would use less renewable energy, so that there would be more of it to go around. Between that and the fact that he still uses a lot of non-renewable energy, makes him a really big enviro hypo.
Another absurd argument. Have you any idea what the solar energy input to Earth is? Al Gore is not stealing your share of sunlight. Al Gore is not stealing your share of the Earth's geothermal energy.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
So the dramatic improvement in quality of our lakes and rivers since SO2 offsets were introduced is of no consequence to you.
www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085
Acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.
Kall..... the EDF is hardly a source I consider "unbiased". Sorry..... the same kind of organizations have reported many times over the polar ice was decreasing at a rapid rate and then other sources report that's not true. So yes.... I hold to my previous statement.... snake oil.
I can't help your erroneous beliefs.
Here's another source. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that SO2 emissions have dropped since cap&trade was introduced. Thanks be to St. Ronald Reagan.
cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewInd&lv=list.listByAlpha&r=219694&subtop=341
There is no way acid rain has decreased for another reason is there?
"Power plants fueled by coal are far less polluting than 30 years ago. Just since 1998, their annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have declined another 28 percent and 43 percent respectively, according to air quality expert Joel Schwartz – and new rules will eliminate most remaining emissions by 2015."
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/old/GrassrootPerspective/AltEnergy032608.shtml
I get it Kall..... I have erroneus beliefs and all your sources are the right ones..... right?
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites